This contradiction is a little blatant, even for you Boaz.

>>This thread has nothing to do with the Bible... your reading for today is. Romans 13:1-5<<

Of course this thread is about the Bible, Boaz, it is the only material, apart from YouTube, that seems to contain any meaning for you.

>>I mention God only because apart from a divine mandate one persons version of 'Human Rights' is as valid as the next persons<<

Your clear intention - although you seem to be the only person who doesn't realise it - is to mock the production of any man-made version of Human Rights, simply in order to proclaim that those that are God-given are somehow superior.

What you carefully ignore is that - as with any earthly version - God appears to have drafted his Human Rights carelessly, allowing any number of interpretations to co-exist.

The parallel is, of course, that the earth-bound versions are argued over by specialist Human Rights lawyers (spit), while your heavenly versions are debated by priests of various cloths, Rabbis, Imams and so on.

I'm afraid that doesn't put them in any more useful a category than the secular versions.

"I mention God only because apart from a divine mandate one persons version of 'Human Rights' is as valid as the next persons.."

Now there's a bit of postmodern relativism for you. It defeats the purpose of the entire argument - that human rights are crap. Following this model of relative validity, whether human rights are crap or not is a matter for the individual. Unless there is such a thing as a universally accepted divine mandate, which there is clearly not given the case in question.

That's all beside the point though isn't it? A troll is a troll.

Chainy.. both you and Pericles do have a valid point on the "Imams Priests etc" and the various versions of Divine Human rights... and the relativism of them.

I still maintain though, the primary purpose of the thread is to point out how seriously stupid it is.. to allow the 'UN' version of Human Rights to in turn allow a man like Qatada to live freely in Britain.

They should just ask him a series of well chosen questions and when he gives his 'Islamic' answers.. lock him up for the duration of his natural life for sedition.

the 'Human/Divine' origin of human rights is a side issue.

If I was offering 'Christian' human rights for world consumption in a legal way.. I'd be offering theocracy... same for Islam.

In fact.. it should be realized that there is no such thing as 'Christian legal human rights' in the sense of it being a codified system of law.. because the whole central core of Christianity is about spiritual reconciliation of fallen man to a Holy Creator.

Romans 13:1-5 is valuable in this connection because it DIFFerentiates the idea of 'State' from Church.

and I'm sure that is welcome to all who fear that Christians are actually secretly hoping for a Theocracy. If we had one.. gooood grief.. just imagine St Stanislaus
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24249086-661,00.html

BREAKING NEWS.. "Bob Brown 'vilifies' Exclusive Brethos" :) -what a meany.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24250004-5005961,00.html

"I still maintain though, the primary purpose of the thread is to point out how seriously stupid it is.. to allow the 'UN' version of Human Rights to in turn allow a man like Qatada to live freely in Britain."

In which case your argument is a political one and not an ideological, theological or philosophical one. Given, for example, the existence of Guantanamo Bay and Australia's failure to ratify the genocide conventions, I'd suggest that the UN version of human rights isn't an immediate threat to anyone.

Presumptive, pontificating professor polycarp. :-)

You should avoid hyperventilating You’ll use up your share of Oxygen too soon. Also it gives rise to unfortunate symptoms, light headedness, delusions, lack of judgement, and paranoia.
In the word of COLonel “you should save words”

Might I humbly suggest in my utter ignorance and desire to help the following phraseology.
“I hate Muslims because…I hate Muslims.” Or “I base my opinions on You Tube and Newspaper articles.” (perhaps not the last one as it would engender unkind sniggers and comments about levels of reasoning)
Much simpler and equally defective reasoning though.

Have pity on all those unfortunate ergamatons who died so you can have your logic free rave.

At some point in time you should (highly recommended) do an objective read of the Bible before you criticise The Qu’ran.

Dare I as a secular thinker remind of the quotes “before you criticise the splinter in your brother’s eye first remove the Mote in your own” and “Love thy neighbour”. I’ve noted the latter difficult to do when you're frothing at the mouth with loathing for them.

My research into and contact with Arabs (or Muslims) has come up with some extraordinary realities . Their beliefs tend to go from the sublime to the Bloody ridiculous. Most statistically(94%) are clustered around the (non lethal) middle ground. Logically then 3% are at the lethal end. And all the more surprising this seems to be the case with Christians too (shock horror do you think they might be humans too).

On the good side I can confirm Sancho’s view that Muslims are not made of Semtex or C4 for that matter either.”

Although I can understand that with your seeming endless supply of Straw men fire would be a problem.
Old son, Your base premise for your question is sheer hypocrisy and irrational bile… have you thought of adding more roughage to your diet?

Seriously though everyone is telling you that you’re misguided perhaps you should ponder on it a bit before disregarding them.
Love that Yum Cha though.

Polly

I'm not anti-you. I'm anti the hypocrisy and shallowness of many of the 'ideas' in your posts. I don't like the way to manipulate OLO and pretend you have an open mind. I find many of your posts narrow-minded, confused and self-contradictory - and sadly I think you often don't notice.

You have knocked the alleged relativism of post-modernists, yet as chainsmoker points out you can post this classic today: <<apart from a divine mandate one persons version of 'Human Rights' is as valid as the next persons.>>

Pericles has already pointed out your contradiction on <<nothing to do with the Bible>> versus <<your reading for today is Romans 13:1>>.

I don't like the way you set up false dichotomies as if both options are equally possible e.g. <<One might prevent a prisoner from deportation and end up with him assassinating the prime minister....>>

And I don't like having the Bible shoved down my throat by you who would lock a man up for life because you don't like his ideas. <<They should just ask him a series of well chosen questions and when he gives his 'Islamic' answers.. lock him up for the duration of his natural life for sedition.>>

Nothing against you BOAZ, but I'd really prefer it if you had a long rest and let others have a turn.